711.40973
C864
cop. 3
' llllll l llll l lllllllllll H III
HI
SHh
IIIUIIIIIIIIIIIII ^ . 1 I I u ■ . 1 . . ■ ■ t I i|i i
■laMliiilm m
iSi Ji l^iyiiHltaibiHJlHHiUH
The Crescent City Disaster:
A Small Town Rebuilds
L
^1 wm\ |g
f^
^
Department of Architecture
LIniversity of Illinois at Lrbana -Champaign
LINOIS HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CRESCENT CITY DISASTER:
A SMALL TOWN REBUILDS
Sherry Acord
Mary Patricia Lynch
*Kathy Cooney
Lois Rocker
Suzanne Dash
Steven Trlerweiler
♦Leonard Lingo
♦Project Directors and Editors
Dr. Claude Wlnkelhake, Faculty Advisor
Dr. Demitri Shimkin, Project Consultant
March, 1978
Sponsored by
National Science Foundation
Student-Originated Studies
NSF-SOS SMI 77-05136
Department of Architecture
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements iii
List of Illustrations ^y
Introduction 1
Subject and Coals of Research 2
The Explosion ^
Immediate Impact of Explosion 6
Description of the Rebuilding Process 10
Introduction 10
Diagram of Rebuilding Phases 10
Phase One Diagram 12
Summary
Events
Roles and Policy
Phase Two Diagram 20
Summary
Events
Roles and Policy
Phase Three Diagram 30
Summary
Events
Roles and Policy
Phase Four Diagram 3 6
Summary
Events
Roles and Policy
Phase Five Diagram 42
Summary
Events
Roles and Policy
Seven Years After 45
48
Conclusions
Methodology 54
Implications for Future Research 57
Appendix 59
^ NSF-SOS Program 60
tK Definitions of Terms 61
N Crescent City Today 62
I Development in Iroquois County before 1970 64
Questionnaire "^
Structured Interview '6
Bibliography °4
_^ Data Sources
Methodology Sources
(5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Crescent City research team would like to thank
Dr. Claiide Winkelhake, our principal advisor; Dr. Dendtri Shimkin,
project consultant; and our faculty advisors. Professors
Lachlan Blair, Larry Cohen, Harry Triandis, and Jon Van Es.
Special thanks are in order for Dr. Max Ward and the National
Science Foundation for rtaking the project possible.
Vfe gratefully acknowledge G. Day Ding, as well as the staff of
the Departitent of Architecture, especially Brenda Polk, Irene Kipp,
Carole Couch, Ginna Mahin, and Marsha Goldenstein.
Finally, we extend our special gratitude to the people of Crescent
City, Illinois, v^o not only patiently, but enthusiastically,
answered our questicxis and offered their insights.
Ill
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Iroquois County Map 3
Figure 2 Explosion, June 21, 1970 4
Figure 3 Main Street, 1960 (looking southeast) 7
Figure 4 Aerial photo looking west, late June, 1970 7
Two-block area outlined.
Figure 5 Crescent City map (1977) . Two-block area outlined 8
Figure 6 Diagram of rebuilding phases 10
Figure 7 Phase One diagram of events and lot map 12
Figure 8 Phase Two diagram of events and lot map 20
Figure 9 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Two 21
Figure 10 Comprehensive Plan proposal 26
Figure 11 Phase Three diagram of events and lot map 30
31
Figure 12 A design proposal for block one; Phase Three
Figure 13 Phase Four diagram of events and lot map 36
Figure 14 Phase Five diagram of events and lot map 42
Figure 15 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Five 43
Figure 16 Main Street, 1977 (looking southeast from Main and Colfax).... 46
Figure 17 Main Street, 1977 (looking southwest between Grant and Maple). . 46
Figure 18 Diagram of Rebuilding Process 51
Figure 19 Simplified Conceptual Framework, July, 1977 . 55
PHOTO CREDITS
The team is indebted to the following people whose photographs appear in this
report:
Figure 2 Kankakee Daily Journal
Figure 3 Dennis Harms, Crescent City, Illinois
Figure 4 Danner and Associates, Consulting Engineers,
Champaign, Illinois
IV
z
h
u
3
Q
0[
h
Z
INTRODUCTION
Subject of Research Crescent City is a small town located in the center
of Iroquois County in east central Illinois. Its
population in 1977 was about 700. On June 20, 1970,
a freight train transporting liquid propane gas de-
railed in Crescent City, causing a series of explo-
sions which virtually leveled the town's business
district. Many homes were also destroyed and others
substantially damaged. This research project in-
tended to describe the redevelopment process in
Crescent City's business district after the disaster.
Goals of the Study Our goals were twofold: first, that the information
gathered about Crescent City's redevelopment could
become part of a later comparative study; and second,
that the description be useful, as is, to architects
and planners working at the scale of the small town.
It is our hope that the analytic framework which we
have developed to describe the redevelopment can be
used to describe other specific development processes.
ILLINOIS
10 40milei
IROQUOIS
COUNTY
S mi lei
norf h
r I
Iroquois County Map
THE EXPLOSION
By far the most dramatic physical change in Crescent City's history
occurred on June 21, 1970. At 6:30 a.m., a freight train on the Toledo,
Peoria and Western railway derailed near the Crescent City business dis-
trict. The train consisted of 109 cars; a journal on the 20th car had
overheated and broken. This car, carrying sand, derailed, and brought
the next thirteen cars with it. Nine of these were tank cars carrying
liquid propane.
Figure 2
Explosion, June 21, 1970
THE EXPLOSION (cont.)
One of the tank cars was punctured and released propane gas. Although
it is not known how, the gas ignited and flames spread to the nearby build-
ings. Crescent City's volunteer firemen arrived on the scene shortly there-
after, pouring water on the burning buildings and derailed cars. At this
point they believed that they could keep the fire under control and kept
positions close to the fire. However, an Illinois State Police sergeant
learned that the tank cars contained propane, a fact previously unknown to
the firemen. At this point the firemen moved back to safer positions and
police began to evacuate the town.
More fuel was added to the fire when safety valves on the tank cars re-
sponded to the increasing pressure and released some of the gas. Neighbor-
ing communities were contacted for assistance. The situation was further
complicated by the fact that power lines operating the main water pumps had
to be de-energized as they were dangling and exposed to fire.
At 7:33 a.m., one of the tank cars exploded with a tremendous force,
hurling large portions distances of 600 and 700 feet away. A huge fireball
extended hundreds of feet into the air (Fig. 2). This explosion was followed
by three others over the course of the next three hours, causing extensive
property damage and injuries. Initial confusion, due to the large numbers
of local firefighting units with no central authority, was eventually alle-
viated by a State Police command post.
Crescent City residents were permitted to return to their homes after
2:00 p.m. on June 22nd. Two tank cars were still burning that evening, and
one the next day, but these fires were under control.
IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF THE EXPLOSION
As a result of the explosions, sixty-six people were injured, eleven
seriously. Fortunately, there were no deaths immediately attributed to
the disaster.
Property damage was extensive in the town. Twenty-nine residences
(both single-family detached and apartment units) were destroyed, while
many others were substantially damaged. The town's two-block business dis-
trict (see Figs. 4 and 5) was almost entirely devastated, with sixteen
businesses completely destroyed and seven others severely damaged.
The subsequent events and activities in Crescent City relative to the
redevelopment of its business district form the major substance of this re-
port.
Figure 3 Main Street, 1960 (looking southeast)
Figure ^ Aerial photo looking west, late June, 1970.
Two-block area outlined.
locati
of
explosions
&MiL
fl ^fL
Q
^D
B B
^ ^
'
1=Q
D
D S
iavra,
E3« a
I tQ
iQ c n
ri^
a
[D &
r
crescent city,
illinois ^
leo 100 4(0 1
^im^
Figure 5
DESCRIPTION OF THE REBUILDING PROCESS
Introduction
In this section it may appear, especially to any Crescent City resident
reading this report, that we are emphasizing the problematic aspects of the
rebuilding process in Crescent City at the expense of the experiences many
people told us about during our summer of fieldwork. We recognize this em-
phasis and wish to state that it has been our intention to highlight the
problems the town had to face. By doing this, we hope these rebuilding
problems might be more clearly recognized and, therefore, more easily anti-
cipated. Hopefully, anyone reading this report on Crescent City's unique
experience may learn something of value, should that experience prove to be
not so unique.
Certain conventions of style were used throughout each section of the
report to make its content more understandable. Role/policy sections con-
sist of our interpretations and conclusions from our data materials. We
have paraphrased some comments made by Crescent City residents during our
interviews. Where these are included, the speaker is identified only in
terms of the role he or she is playing (businessman, resident, etc.). Para-
phrases were selected over direct quotations to help prevent disclosure
of the source of the information. Present tense is used to describe events
in the events section. All persons are referred to in the masculine gender,
although some of the key characters are women. Again, this convention has
been used merely to prevent identification of individuals.
The reader may wish to refer to the definitions of key terms, found in
the Appendix.
June 21 1970
Aug 7
NovS
Feb 3 1971
Oct 4
Jon 1972
Explosion
Decision to
form CCDC
First non-plan
building
started
Key lot sold
to plan
non- supporter
Block two
lots bought
by CCDC
CCDC
building
completed
PH
ON
E
PHAS
TWO
E
PH
TH
ASE
REE
PH
FO
ASE
UR
PH
FIV
ASE
'E
Reorgo
ond se<
nix
arch
ation
for
Plan f
orm
ulotion
Depar
rebuil
ture
ding
from
plan
Declin
suppoi
> of
t
Plan
implen
lent
ation
resources
Diagram of rebuilding phases
Figure 6
10
(0
0)
UJ
u
cc
a
z
5
J
3
ui
CI
IL
z
a
u
01
U]
D
Jun 21 1970
Exploiion
Two blocks of
butin«*t oroo
lovolod
Commujty r«*id*nt«
EVENT
ROLES
Building pormlt
ittu«dfar n«w
building outtida
two block orao
Buiinatsmon
Villoaa Board
Jun 29
Phase One
Reorganization and Search
for Resources
Rabuildingdaiifn
taom lalactad
HUD houtinf
ditcuttad
VilioflaBoord LGA
County hnuiina Auth
Jul 6
Community-wlda
planning maating-
unifiad rabullding
and cooparation
itraiiad
Ootign Taom Moy or
Comniunltw ra«idant»
Jul 10
Aug T
Dacition to form
privata
davalopmant
corporotion
SBA LGA
Vilioga Board
Co«nniuPitv ratidant^
Economic analyi ii
of town complatad
Oatign Taam
LGA
Aug 1
Key to Lot Mop
axiiting building
Main St. (US. 24)
12
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
o
u
BLOCK TWO
13 j
14 IS 1
16 1 1
7 ' 18
Figure 7
c
o
«5
Union St.
12
12
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
2
1
4
3
I^
BLOCK ONE
□
14
IS
16
E:
17
3
18
Q.
O
25 50 100 faat
Phase One — Summary
Phase One was essentially an initial organizing phase during which few major
decisions were made. However, it is important because it was the time during
which the people in Crescent City began to familiarize themselves with the re-
sources at their disposal to assist in redevelopment. The distinction between
roles in this phase is best made on the basis of resources.
Our description has focused mainly on events and roles which relate to the two-
block business area. Fifteen people either owned lots or ran businesses in
the area prior to the explosion.
Crescent City was declared a disaster area by the Small Business Administration
(SBA) but not by the federal government since the explosion was not an "act of
God." This was significant in that it precluded the possibility of Crescent
City benefitting from several different federal disaster aid program. The only
rebuilding money immediately available was through the SBA 502 program. SBA
deals only with private interests, making it necessary to form a private develop-
ment corporation. Definite commitments from prospective renters were required
before any money would be loaned by SBA.
In effect, it became not only desirable, but financially necessary, to elicit
unified cooperation in order to qualify for the loans. While SBA did have a
program to make loans to individuals, the stipulations of this program were
such that only one person applied for and received this loan.
Planning funds obtained from LGA were made available to the design team chosen
by the Village Board. LGA required that a comprehensive plan for the entire
community be developed. Specific architectural design was not part of the
planning report.
13
Phase One — Events: June 21, 1970 to August 6, 1970
June 21
As a result of the explosions and fire, the following
businesses have been destroyed in the two-block business
district:
gas station
2 taverns
hardware store
barbershop
poultry and feed store
piano tuning and repair shop
laundromat
sheet metal business
beauty shop
machine shop
tool and die business
construction office
auto repair
corn crib and two steel bins
Two vacant buildings have also been destroyed, as well
as seven apartments (owned by two different people) .
The U.S. Post Office and Iroquois Township Building are
leveled also.
June 22
Residents are permitted to re-enter Crescent City and
clean-up efforts begin, both on the private level and
with assistance from various agencies. Emergency
relief is provided by the Red Cross, and clean-up
assistance comes from various government agencies and
volunteers.
June 23
Governor Ogilvie visits Crescent City and promises to
do what he can to help.
A special meeting is held at the town hall, with repre-
sentatives in attendance from the Better Business
Bureau, the Watseka First Trust and Savings, and the
Small Business Administration (SBA) . Crescent City has
been declared a disaster area by SBA, but not by the
federal government, since the explosion was not "an act
of God."
June 29
The Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad accepts finan-
cial responsibility for the disaster, and railroad
adjusters begin immediately to accept and settle claims.
The first announcement of intent to rebuild is made by
one owner of a business destroyed in the two-block
area.
At a town meeting, a building permit is Issued to this
owner allowing him to put up a prefabricated building
on a different site. Also at this meeting, an 18-month
limit is placed on the use of trailers as temporary
housing. A disaster fund is established at the Watseka
First Trust and Savings.
14
Phase One — Events (cont.)
July 6 At the Village Board regular meeting, two representatives
of the Iroquois County Housing Authority make a presenta-
tion explaining the possibilities of HUD-financed low-
income and elderly housing for Crescent City. Crescent
City may be eligible for this support now, because so many
homes have been destroyed; also because there is a higher
than average percentage of persons over 65 living in the
town. A resolution is passed requesting the Housing
Authority to apply for 30 units of housing.
At the same meeting, two representatives of the State
Department of Local Government Affairs (LGA) help the
Board make the final selection of the architectural firm
which will do the planning work for the redevelopment. A
firm from Champaign, Illinois is selected.
July 10 A community-wide planning meeting is held at the Crescent
City grade school, attended by about 125 persons. Two
major issues are discussed: Small Business Administration
(SBA) funding and the work to be done by the design team.
The SBA representative explains that SBA deals only with
private interests, not with local governments. Through
the SBA 502 program, low-interest (5 1/2%) loans can be
made to a local private corporation for 90% of the cost
of construction of new business buildings. (Private lend-
ing institutions, at regular interest rates, must be tried
first.) However, the local corporation is responsible for
the remaining 10% of the cost of construction and can rent
or eventually sell property to individual businessmen.
Before a loan can be approved, a corporation must be
formed and definite commitments by prospective renters
must be obtained.
At the same meeting, the members of the design team, in-
cluding architects, planners, and consultants (including
economic and geological) are introduced to the audience.
A spokesman for the team announces a timetable of work
to begin immediately, culminating in the release of their
recommendations in six weeks. The State Department of
Local Government Affairs, under its 701 program, will
pay for 2/3 of the planning costs; the Village will pay
the rest.
The mayor of Crescent City urges citizens to make their
feelings known. The desirability of a coherent, unified
business district is stressed by the SBA representative
and the design team, with emphasis on private redevelopment.
July 21 The contract is signed between the planning team and the
Department of Local Government Affairs (LGA).
15
Phase One — Events (cont.)
July 23 The Watseka Daily Times-Republic announces a question-
naire, dealing with local shopping patterns and prefer-
ences, which will contribute to the analysis being done
by the economic consultant.
July 30 The economic and geological reports for the design team
are completed and sent to LGA. Results are not yet pre-
sented to town members, but will be used as a basis for
later planning decisions.
16
Phase One — Roles and Policy
Railroad
The railroad
resources. S
those who had
is that settl
value of the
aJ 1 of the bu
than 50 years
value was abo
played an important role due to its financial
ettlements were made almost immediately with
property damage or loss. An important point
ements were made based on the pre-disaster
property, not the replacement cost. Since
ildings in the business district were more
old, and some much older, the pre-disaster
ut 25% of replacement costs in most cases.
Businessmen
The businessmen in the two-block area had the most important
resource: the property to be redeveloped.
As might be expected, some varying opinions were expressed
regarding the railroad settlements for property damage:
(Village Board member):
Some people made money off the
settlements. 50% were satisfied,
50% were not, but knowing those
people, nothing would have satis-
fied them.
Design Team
Local Government
County Government
State Government
(Businessman) :
(Town resident)
Some businessmen really cleaned
up — $10,000 for a $1000 building.
Two of the empty storefronts on
Main Street could have been bought
for $5000 or $5500 apiece, but
would cost $40,000 to replace.
The design team's resource was its expertise. Using its
expertise, it was responsible for developing a rebuilding
plan and acting in an advisory capacity. It had two formal
clients — LGA and the Village Board — and two "informal" cli-
ents — the businessmen and community residents.
On the public side, governmental agencies at four levels
interacted with the town during phase one. At the local
level, the mayor had the necessary leadership qualities
and some contacts at higher levels of government. The
Village Board had the official authority to make public
decisions. However, the types of decisions they were
called upon to make now were much broader in scope than
the decisions they had been responsible for previously.
At the county level, the Iroquois County Housing Authority
acted as a channelling device for federal housing funds.
Two roles were important at the state level: the governor
and the Department of Local Government Affairs (LGA) . The
governor had contacts, visibility, and official authority.
He initiated many contacts for Crescent City in an attempt
to get funds. Many of these contacts did get in touch
with the mayor.
17
Phase One — Roles and Policy (cont.)
LGA, being a public agency, had stipulations regarding
the use of its 701 planning funds, which were federal in
origin. LGA required that a report, including a compre-
hensive plan, be prepared. Specific architectural work
would be additional, under a separate contract.
(Design team member) : There was disagreement between
the planners and the architects
about the importance of developing
plans as opposed to writing a re-
port.
Federal Government Finally, at the federal level, three roles were important
in Phase One. HUD was a prospective source of money in
the form of subsidized housing. SBA was a prospective
source of loans; its stipulations regarding the necessity
of a local corporation were extremely important in shaping
the course of future events.
The third role at the federal level was influential not
for what it did, but for what it didn't do. That is, the
appropriate federal authorities chose not to name Crescent
City a disaster area and, therefore, it was not eligible
for certain federal disaster assistance programs.
18
Aug 7 1970
Decision to form
private develop-
ment corporation
(CCDC)
SBA LGA
Villoge Board
Community resident 5
Development
Corporation
formed. Boord of
directors elected
CCDC
Community residents
Aug 27
Phase Iv/o
Plan Formulation
Initial rebuilding
plans discussed
at CCDC meeting
CCDC
Design Teom
Sep 16
Purchase of block
one and two lot
options begins
CCDC
Lot Owners
Sep 28
Comprehensive
planning report
presented at
community
meeting
Nov 5
First non-plan
building in block
one started
Bu
sinessmon
DesignTeom CCDC
Community residenti..
Oct 12
Approval of thirty
units HUD housing
Village Board
County housing Auth
Oct 30
Key to Lot Map
Land Purchase
Building
^
by CCDC (option)
existing
Main St. (U.S. 24)
J
1
1
r^
Vs
\\
5
r;
v||
■10
H
/
-6^
.S
4
J
^^^
• I--
sN
\.>k.
V.\
-k-ik.
S N
i-A
BLOCK TWO
o
u
1
13 j
14 1 15 j
1
16 1
7 1 18
1
1
i
__^
X^
v\
\^
\\
12
II
10
n'>
^^
7N
N*-
t}
4
3
2
1
o
BLOCK
ONI
iW
14
h-
15
r
16
y
17
-<
18
a
o
s
Figure 8
Union St.
20
Phase Two — Summary
In this phase a community based development corporation (CCDC) was formed and
a board of directors elected. The same planning design team was chosen to de-
velop an architectural rebuilding plan for the CCDC. The design team in the first
two phases worked with businessmen mainly through the mayor. The mayor and
design team continued to look for sources of rebuilding funds in addition to
SBA funds. The planning report was presented at a community-wide meeting. Later,
one businessman requested a building permit in block one, indicating that some
businessmen did not wish to wait for organized rebuilding. The CCDC began to
purchase lot options in the two-block area.
^°in St
T««n
c*nt»r
Villag*
hall
/
Stor«(
44 (
ruQi *-
Drug
Shops Hordwor.
Bonk
Union St
Figure 9
A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Two
21
Phase Two — Events; August 6, 1970 through November 5, 1970
August 6
A public meeting is held with 200 people in attendance.
The planning team submits the results of the market
survey, which indicate that 12,571 people would use
a new shopping center in Crescent City, with a pur-
chase volume of $450, 000/year . The businesses named
most desirable are a bank, grocery, hardware store,
variety store, restaurant, beauty shop, laundromat,
and a barber shop.
August 20
The SBA representative again explains the conditions
of SBA loans and the need for a private corporation.
It is announced that a development corporation will
be formed, with the board and officers to be chosen
soon. 75 people pledge $25 each to the corporation.
A representative of Eisner's, a grocery store chain,
tells the Village Board that in order to operate a
store in Crescent City, he will need to take in
$8,000 a week.
August 27
100 residents are present at a meeting at which the
Crescent City Development Corporation (CCDC) is formed.
An 11-member board, including a director, are elected
from 29 nominees. The same architectural firm is hired
to do additional work, not part of the LGA contract,
as needed.
September 9
The first CCDC board meeting is held at the high school,
The top priority is to get a grocery store to come in
to the new village center. The possibility is dis-
cussed that there could be more market potential than
was indicated in the survey if a larger area were con-
sidered.
September 16
100 members of the CCDC meet at the grade school to
hear a progress report by the design team. Plans call
for a new shopping center on block 2 with future expan-
sion into block 1.
September 25
CCDC begins trying to buy options on lots in block 1
of the 2-block area. The board members feel that de-
velopment can best be handled in a unified way if all
the lots are under a single ownership, or at least op-
tioned by the same owner.
October 12
October 15
At a public meeting the rebuilding report and community
plan required by LGA are presented to community residents.
CCDC obtains options on Lots 2, 5, 9, 10; 11 in block 2.
22
Phase Two — Events
October 16
October 17
October 19
October 30
November 1
November 2
The principal architect advi
that LGA will pay $2500 unde
if CCDC wll match the funds,
sonal interviews be held wit
the business district, and t
to get firm commitments for
the corporation. (At this t
the corporation were highly
that substantial investments
to raise enough money to imp
ses the CCDC chairman
r the second contract
He suggests that per-
h owners and lessors in
hat stock options be sold
stock to be sold later by
ime, the expectations for
optimistic. It was hoped
would be made in order
lement the plan.)
CCDC obtains options on Lots 1, 6 in block 2.
CCDC obtains options on Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 in block 1.
The Watseka Daily Times-Republic announces that the
County Housing Authority has received notice of HUD
approval of 20 low-rent housing units in Crescent
City (6 low-income and 14 elderly).
The mayor estimates a $250,000 grant (1/3 of expenses)
will be needed to keep costs down and rents affordable
in the new village center.
At the regular Village Board meeting, the Assistant
State's Attorney from Iroquois County is present to
discuss the HUD housing project. Also, a building
permit is issued to a businessman to rebuild in block 1.
23
Phase Two — Roles and Policy
CCDC
The CCDC was formed to make the town eligible for an
SBA 502 loan. Businessmen and community residents
were asked to contribute $25 each to become members
of the not-for-profit corporation. It assumed respon-
sibility for local management of rebuilding in the
destroyed two-block area. Its success depended upon
cooperation among businessmen and lot owners within
that area, community residents, and the design team.
A board of 11 members was elected to direct the CCDC
efforts.
Design Team
Both the mayor and the principal architect were very
busy during this phase trying to locate possible sources
of public funds. The approval of the HUD housing was
the only source of funding which came through during
this phase, but this did nothing to help commercial
development.
The design team made their recommendations for rebuilding
during this phase. They recommended that:
— the village center be rebuilt as a private venture
— the CCDC immediately obtain options on all property
in blocks one and two. Block two would be needed
for immediate development and block one for future
expansion.
— the CCDC solicit letters of intent from prospective
tenants
— the development consist of nine store units of vary-
ing sizes and their related parking
— parking should be off-street
— the development should be convenient, easily ac-
cessible, preserve the rural appearance, have a
distinct appearance, be of economical construction,
and be well landscaped.
Problems arose due to differing expectations about the
desired outcome of the planning work.
(Design team member) :
In a sense, there were two cli-
ents: LGA and the town. LGA
did more than the townspeople
wanted or expected. People did
not care about future develop-
ment, but LGA money was origi-
nally federal money, and neces-
sitated a general community plan.
People felt the plan was too
non-specific .
24
Phase Two — Roles and Policy (cont.)
(Design team member) :
In the peoples' opinion, only
the leveled blocks ought to be
developed "right"; in the rest
of the area, the didn't want
the architects or city hall to
interfere.
A diagrammatic map of the comprehensive plan can be seen
in Figure 10.
Community Residents
Some of those we interviewed stated that there were
mixed feelings toward the CCDC from the very beginning.
To some, the CCDC board elections seemed predetermined.
(Businessman) :
They railroaded their men in.
Some people were disillusioned when they felt they had
no say in the decision-making process. There was also
misunderstanding about what a development corporation
was for and what it proposed to do.
(Village official);
Everyone on the board was soli-
citing door-to-door, but people
didn't want to buy a share
without getting anything in re-
turn. They had never heard of
a development corporation.
Since at one time the CCDC had considered financing re-
building through issuing bonds, the reactions of com-
munity residents to rebuilding were important. The fear
that rents would be too high in the new Village Center
without some sort of aid was becoming more widespread.
Crescent City, it was feared, could not compete with
the larger nearby towns. The design team's plans seemed
overly optimistic and expensive.
(CCDC member)
(Town resident) :
(Town resident)
People were all hepped up for
rebuilding, but the architect's
plans scared them.
The "older generation" in
Crescent City would not accept
any plan so grand.
They (the design team) presented
plans and drawings, but the peo-
ple were only interested in fi-
nancing. When they got their
insurance money, they were no
longer interested in big plans.
25
26
n i>| Hn « nMu ) >"Mm iiii nn rr7 i Trn t> n i inM >i uM ii m i MHM I nh »> mu > ii mm i HHM in iien
7 lc =^
Figure 10 Comprehensive Plan proposal
27
Phase Two — Roles and Policy
Lot Owners The owners of lots in the two-block area began to play
active roles, either in support or non-support of the
CCDC by selling or not selling options to their lots.
All but six owners in the two-block area sold options
very early. These six had various reasons for holding
back:
One person wanted to rebuild the apartments he had
owned before, but this use did not conform to the
planned commercial use for his lots.
28
Phase Two — Roles and Policy
One other person did not want to sell to the CCDC
because he distrusted their motives; it was a "land
grab". Ke was not particularly interested in re-
building, feeling that his one lot was too narrow
(25'), and he knew the owners of the contiguous
properties were unlikely to sell to him.
Another property in question during phase two was
owned by a person who did not live in Crescent
City. Relatives were operating the business for
him, but they did not want to rebuild after the ex-
plosion for reasons of health and the feeling that
the business could not survive much longer. I'Jhy
they did not sell options immediately is not known.
One of them was on the Village Board at the time.
Three owners wanted to rebuild their businesses im-
mediately on the same lots, although one wanted to
build a different type of business. They did not
want to wait for the CCDC and its plan to come
through. One of these owners received a permit to
rebuild on the same lot. The permit had been
withheld earlier due to noncompliance with new
zoning requirements for setback.
(Village Board member) : He wanted to put his build-
ing right back where it was
and resented being told what
to do.
A Village Board member convinced the Board that
this person was losing money every day and couldn't
live off the railroad settlement because it had
to be used for rebuilding.
29
Nov 5 1970
First non— plan
building in block
one started
Businessman
EVENT
ROLES
JWA survey shovi^s
lack of suoport
for rebuiding
plan
JWA CCDC
Community residents
Late Nov
Phase Three
Departure from Rebuilding Plan
40 residents
oppeor at village
board meeting to
discuss HUD
housing
Village board
Community residents
Dec 7
Block one lot
sold to private
businessman
Businessmen
Dec 30
Feb 3
Purchase of lot
back half block
two by private
businessman
Businessman
Lot owner
UJ
U1
ec
<
D
I
o
a.
u.
Resolution to
Purchose lots on
back half block
two for $40 per
frontage foot
Village board
Feb 1 1971
Key to Lot Map
Lend Purchase Building
by individual
by CCDC (option)
existing
Laa__J new construction
Main St (US 24)
v\
\\
\N
s\
\\
\\
S\
12
1
•Ih
1
1
8
7
1
4
3
1
1
o
u
BLOCK TWO
13 1
14 j 15
1
16 1 1
7 18
o
10
l:
.\\
■■ \
BLOCK ONE
^
14
15
V
16
17
<
18
a
o
Figure 11
Union St.
30
Main St
Shops
Laundry
Existing
Store
-
1
Telephone
Exchange
V
1
Pa
rki
ng
110
cart
1
1
\
6 units
HUD housing
8 units
HUD housing
11-27-70
Figure 12
Phase Three — Sununary
Union St
A design proposal for block one; Phase Three
In this phase the first major departure from the rebuilding plan occurred. The
village board, which had been trying to prevent rebuilding on either block, so that
the rebuilding plan could be implemented in its entirety, gave up on the less
important block one. Several businessmen, without business or other income,
were feeling the pinch of living expenses and taxes.
The CCDC continued, without success, to seek sources of money and potential new
business. Recognizing a decline in community support, a survey of residents
was organized by the Junior Women's Association. The results of this survey
were disappointing.
The town board began to encounter resistance to HUD housing from community resi-
dents. Late in this phase it attempted to aid the CCDC by trying to purchase
lots in the still-vacant block two.
31
Phase Three — IwenCs : November 5, 1970 through February 3, 1971
November 5
Ground is broken for a new building on lot 12, block one.
The design team, along with a local contractor, helped de-
sign it.
November 19
A local service organization, the Junior Women's Association
(JWA) , announces that they will conduct a survey of community
residents in cooperation with the CCDC. Questions included
relate to interest in the proposed Village Center, willing-
ness to use it, willingness to invest in it and the CCDC,
and any suggestions or complaints.
November 30
The mayor sends a letter to a congressional representative
to see if he can contact HUD about obtaining funds from
their demonstration program. He estimates that $450,000
would be needed for the first phase of the demonstration
program.
December 7
Forty community residents appear at a town board meeting
to discuss HUD housing.
December 30
A block-one lot owner sells his lot to a businessman who
wants to rebuild a business.
January 18, 1971
The mayor sends a letter to the state representative stating
that the village needs $50,000 to buy lots to be reserved
for the Village Center.
February 1
At a regular Village Board meeting, the board passes a reso-
lution to purchase lots on the back half of block two.
32
Phase Three — Roles and Folic
■zX.
Businessmen
When one businessman began rebuilding on block one, the
likelihood of implementing many of the design team's re-
building recommendations dropped. Several reasons were
given for the departure.
(Village board member)
(Town resident)
The businessman was bound and de-
termined to rebuild in the same spot.
The businessman didn't want to be
told where to rebuild.
(Village board member):
(CCDC member)
The businessman couldn't live off
the insurance settlement, so the
village board allowed the build-
ing to be built.
The CCDC got tired of fighting in-
dividual rebuilding efforts and
gave up on block one.
The lack of business income and the prospect of paying tax
on insurance settlements were certainly forces to be reckoned
with.
One other businessman purchased an adjoining lot in block
one, thus showing his intention to rebuild individually.
The unity of businessmen needed for an integrated rebuild-
ing was eroding.
CCDC
The CCDC faced two major problems during this phase. First,
thb CCDC had to obtain commitments from potential renters
before it could receive an SBA loan and begin building, but
had little success in locating any.
(CCDC member):
The CCDC couldn't get that many
renters at once.
(Village official);
The CCDC tried hard to attract
new business. It advertised in
newspapers, but this was unsuccess-
ful; most potential lessors
wanted a building that was already
built.
The CCDC was in the unenviable position of not being able to
attract new renters until a building was there, and not
being able to get a new building until it got new renters.
The rebuilding in block one removed two potential renters.
Second, the CCDC had no success in finding outside sources
of funding for commercial purposes other than SBA. The
CCDC also looked for funds from private individuals to
finance the rebuilding plan. A tentative project analysis
33
Phase Three — Roles and Policy (cent.)
indicated that $300,000 would be needed for the first
four years of operation. The development corporation,
in its early stages, tried without success to find 100
people willing to invest $3000 each in bonds which would
return 6% interest after four years.
Community Residents
Support from community residents, as well as businessmen,
was an important resource which declined during this phase.
Since government funds had not come through, money from
within the community became the principal source of funds.
Some perceived the rebuilding plan to be unfeasible when
first presented in phase two. This perception may have
been intensified as no potential renters were found, no
new sources of funding were discovered, and as individual
rebuilding efforts began. We obtained some impressions of
this decline in interviews.
(Village official)
Rebuilding caused substantial divi-
sion in the community. Many who
gave money to the CCDC ($25 initial
contribution) didn't support it
100% as time went on.
(CCDC member)
(CCDC member)
When people found out state and fed-
eral governments were not going to
rebuild the town, they backed down.
The plan lost impetus when Eisner's
decided not to come in; the grocery
was needed as a nucleus for the plan.
(Design team member)
Village Board
For their plans, time was of the
essence. When buildings (inde-
pendently constructed) started to
go up, time was lost.
HUD housing had been suggested as part of the rebuilding
plan. Community residents began to question the need for
it during this phase.
The Village Board continued to act in support of the CCDC by
pressing ahead for HUD housing for the town. The mayor
actively pursued new sources of funding and looked for
potential commercial renters. The board was also important
in a passive sense for the actions it permitted: issuance
of a rebuilding permit in block one. According to the re-
building plan, block one was to be used for future expan-
sion; however, the board did permit more immediate rebuild-
ing on it, while it tried to retain block two for a complete
village center. Later in this phase, the village board at-
tempted to purchase the remaining lots in block two for
the development corporation.
34
Feb 3 1971
Phase Four
Decline of Support
Oct 4
1
Purchase of lot
back half block
two by businessman
Village lots
purchased bock
by CCDC
Businessman
Lot owner
CCDC
Villaae Board
UJ
1/1
<
I
Ol
Ul
>
u.
EVENT
Another lot back
half block two
purchased by
businessman
$25,000 received
forpurchose of
lots in block two
Non-plan
building started
Optioned lots
purchosed by
village board
ROLES
Businessman
Lot Owner
Village Board
State Government
Businessman
Village Board
CCDC
Feb 19
Apr 15
May
May
Key to Lot Mop
L ond Pu re hose Building
^
by individual
by Village Board
ex i St inc
nn n
ew construction
Main St. (aSZ4l
o
u
BLOCK TWO
m
1 ]
1
1
1
^
1 1
1
1
14 I 15 j
16 i 1
D
7 [ 18
Figure 13
o
O
._
'/y
]
1
^
J
9
a
5
4
3
7
1
12
II
10
^ /
/.
BLOCK ONE
L^n
u
15
16
y
17
18
Union St.
a
s
36
Phase Four — Summary
Until the beginning of this phase, the major obstacles preventing rebuilding
were the lack of sufficient funds to purchase lots and build, and the lack of
success attracting prospective new business. The lesser importance of block
one for rebuilding made it expendable and one businessman was allowed to begin
rebuilding there. At the beginning of this phase, one businessman purchased
lots in the back of block two, later building a residence upon them. This pre-
vented the rebuilding plan from being implemented at the scale originally en-
visioned by the design team. Village Board, and CCDC. The Village Board would not,
or could not, prevent independent rebuilding upon these lots. Several factors may
have influenced this:
— the community's continuing decline in interest and support for unified re-
building
— the growing controversy over HUD housing, which was linked with the
plan in many peoples' minds
— the conflict within the community which the rebuilding had generated
and which residents wanted to see stopped.
Later in the phase the village board received money from the State with which
to purchase lots. This was accomplished, though not without difficulty,
with the purchase of lots in the front of black two. This opened the way
for the CCDC to purchase lots back from the village at a nominal price.
37
Phase Four — Events :
February 3
February 19
March 29
April 5
April 15
May 1-31
June 7
February 3, 1971 through October 4, 1971
One businessman purchases lot 18 on the back of block two.
Same businessman purchases part of lot 14 and all of
lot 15 on the back of block two. They are to be used for
his residence.
Village Board decides to immediately activate the village
zoning committee.
At a regular Village Board meeting 20 people appear with a
petition containing 175 signatures opposing low income/
elderly housing; however, the Board decides that they
will notify the county housing authority that they will
stand by their previous decision to support the project.
The Village Board receives $25,000 from the State to purchase
lots in blocks one and two.
A building permit is issued for construction of a residence
on the back of block two and a business in block one.
Another businessman on block two trades the front of his
lot with the Village Board in exchange for the back of an
adjacent lot. He begins construction of his building during
this month.
The Village Board purchases two lots in block one, all but
one of the front lots in block two, and one back lot in
block two. The village takes over CCDC land options.
At a Village Board meeting, no decisions are made concern
ing HUD housing. Also, a block two businessman is given
one week to decide about selling his property on the front
of block two before condemnation proceedings begin.
38
Phase Four — Roles and Policy
Village Board
After many months of activity on the part of the
Village Board and CCDC with few visible results, the
Village Board tried to regain momentum for the plan
by attempting to purchase lots on block two.
When some of these lots in block two were purchased
by a businessman, the Village Board could have in-
fluenced the subsequent rebuilding by exercising
its authority to refuse building permits and condemn
land, but it did not. The Board did attempt to impose
restrictions on all individual businesses rebuilt, in
the form of a revised zoning ordinance. Also, in at
least one instance condemnation of land was threatened.
Later in this phase the Village Board purchased all re-
maining lots in blocks one and two with money pro-
vided by the State.
State Government
Businessmen
Village Board members played a variety of roles within
the community (neighbor, business contact, etc.). The
demands of each of these roles strongly influenced
each village board member in his role as a board mem-
ber, thus making the board responsible to the commu-
nity in many ways, and influencing the board's actions.
The State gave a $25,000 grant to the town to be used
for purchase of lots late in this phase.
The purchase of lots in the back of block two by in-
dividual businessmen was the most influential single
act in the rebuilding of Crescent City, because it
removed the possibility of building a single block
shopping mall as envisioned by the design team and
CCDC. This property was now to be used as a residence
rather than a business.
Community Residents
Shortly after this another block-two businessman
announced his intention to rebuild in block two, ig-
noring recommendations regarding setback from the
highway and selection of building materials. Other
businessmen were still very reluctant to sell block-
two lots to the Village Board.
Community support continued to decline in this phase.
Our interviews suggested several important influences
which were serving as dividing forces within the com-
munity at this time. The rebuilding plan appeared
extravagant, especially as time passed without visible
results, and as sufficient money sources failed to
materialize. Mistrust of the design team and CCDC
developed among some community residents. Any lack
of faith, founded or unfounded, would reduce the
chances of unified rebuilding.
39
Phase Four — Roles and Policy (cent.)
Community residents were becoming tired of the conflict
between groups which the rebuilding effort seemed to
create.
(Village official): There was no history of con-
flict with businessmen before
the disaster.
Division caused by the issue of HUD housing also ap-
peared to decrease support for the Village Board, CCDC,
and rebuilding plan.
(Community resident) : At the time they were consider-
ing putting in the housing
projects, the town rejected
them.
(Design team member) : Community leaders were inter-
ested in low income/elderly
housing, but the townspeople
were not.
40
Oct 4 1971
Phase Five
Plan Implementation
Late Dec
1
Purchase of lots
in block two
from village
CCDC building
completed
CCDC
Villaqe boarcJ
CCDC
EVENT
ROLES
CCDC building
started
CCDC
Mid Oct
Key to Lot Map
Land Purchose
Building
WA
by individual
by Village Boa rd
by CCDC
existing
new construction
Moln St ( U.S 24)
o
u
c
□
O
12
5
F
/.
8
7/
"A
BLOCK ONE
^
14
15
16
\
17
3
18
a
S
Figure 14
Union St.
42
Phase Five — Summary
In this phase the remnants of the rebuilding plan of the CCDC and design team
were implemented. Most individual businessmen who intended to rebuild had
either started to rebuild or were back in business by this phase. The CCDC
purchased lots in block two from the village board and completed the building
that now houses the town's only grocery. The two-block area, for all practical
purposes, was now rebuilt. The HUD housing project was dropped.
o
Main St
TT
{^
^
G
Union Si
A^
1
Tavern
Grocery
Future expansion '
\
D
~)
Pof I Office
Reitauronl
Tavern
Beauty thop
Existing Building
a
o
Figure 15 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Five
Phase Five — Events: October 4, 1971 to January 1972
October 4
CCDC buys lots 6-10, block two from the village. Low
income/elderly housing project is dropped for lack of
support witliin the town.
Mid-October
December
Construction begins on the CCDC building.
Construction of the building for the CCDC is completed,
and a convenience grocery store opens within it.
&-K
Phase Five — Roles and Policy
Village Board
During this phase the Village Board finally dropped
the HUD housing project due to lack of agreement over
its importance among community residents. The board
itself was still in favor of the idea.
CCDC
The CCDC was unable to obtain an SBA loan to purchase
land and start construction of a building until it
found businessmen willing to rent or buy space. During
this phase it found a businessman from outside the town
willing to do so and obtained the SBA 502 loan. The
grocery opened a little over one and one-half years
after the explosion.
Community Residents
Significantly, this one and a half year time period
is the approximate time period which many people felt
was the length of time it took for the town to return
to normal following the explosion, and so, arbitrarily
marks the time our interest in Crescent City's rebuilding
ends.
44
Seven Years After
Today the only sign of the destruction which occurred in Crescent City is a monu-
ment with a small sculpture made from train wreckage, just west of the city hall.
The town has clean, one-story, commercial buildings lining the south side of
Route 2A . Well-kept homes lie behind the commercial strip and north of the
TP&W tracks.
Most people do not mind talking about the events of seven years ago. They will
tell you they really like the appearance of the new town, and most will minimize
the importance of the old town. In fact some will joke with you and even say
that the explosion was a form of instant urban renewal — it got rid of a lot of
old buildings which needed to be torn down anyway. The people of Crescent City
continue to display the durability which enabled them to rebuild their town.
45
Figure lb Main Street, 1977 (looking southeast from Main and Colfax)
Figure 17 Main Street, 1977 (looking southwest between Grant and Maple)
(0
z
(0
3
J
u
z
u
CONCLUSIONS
Public Policy
Our initial intent for this study was to identify and describe the groups
or individuals influential in public policy formation in Crescent City. This
would be limited to policy directly related to redevelopment in the destroyed
commercial district. We began by formulating the following definition of pub-
lic policy:
"a stated or implied set of priorities within a defined area of juris-
diction resulting in decisions which attempt to respond to problems
within the area of jurisdiction."
As the research proceeded, we found that there was not one set of priori-
ties directing decision-making, but many. It seemed to make more sense to
think in terms of micro-policy, the decision-making rules for specific roles,
rather than an overall policy which directed the course of action. We have
now defined policy as Richard Bellman did in "Dynamic Programming," as a
set of rules telling one what decision to make in terms of the present state
of the system.
As will be discussed later in this section, the scale of the small town
seems to be a very important consideration. We suggest that the small town dif-
fers from the city, or the region, not only in size but in structure. There
may be a continuum of scale along which the concept of public policy needs to
be adjusted. Awareness of these structural differences could prevent unnecessary
problems for architects and planners working at the small town scale.
We would now like to summarize the major problems which arose during the
redevelopment of Crescent City. Rather than making recommendations for design
professionals to follow, based on this one isolated example, we prefer to pre-
sent our conslusions as potential problems to be anticipated. As every situa-
tion is different, it is our hope that the framework we have developed (Fig. 18)
would be more useful to the designer than the specifics of the Crescent
City situation.
The major problems which occurred during Crescent City's redevelopment
process can be placed into five categories: money, time, context, goals, and
scale.
Money
Perhaps the most obvious problem was the lack of money, or more accurately,
the failure to mobilize it.
Public sources of financing failed to materialize early enough. The only
outright grants came from the State of Illinois (for purchase of lots) and
Local Government Affairs (for planning). Small Business Administration loans
carried the stipulation that potential renters be pre-committed; this brought
about a costly loss of time and limited some possibilities of attracting
renters later.
Private up-front money was not as readily available as initially hoped.
The problem seems to be more a reluctance to invest than a lack of funds. This
was due to several reasons: some mistrust of the CCDC board, the village of-
ficials, and the architects; misunderstanding of the purpose of a development
corporation; disagreement over the physical features of the plan; a general at-
titude of conservatism toward spending money; and a rather widely-held belief
that Crescent City did not need, and could not support, much commercial develop-
ment.
48
CONCLUSIONS
Money (cont.)
The loss of income by businessmen with destroyed businesses necessitated
a fast solution to the problem. This was complicated by related problems:
insurance compensations were not enough to replace the destroyed buildings;
and it was difficult in some cases to document lost inventories. These condi-
tions made it somewhat difficult for the businessmen who had lost businesses
to get enough money to rebuild. More potential renters for the new village
center were lost when some of the older businessmen decided to retire r;ither
then go back into business.
Time
Time was a crucial factor which contributed to erosion of support for the
plan. The early enthusiasm exhibited at the first meetings after the explosion
died out as reality set in. The early work done by the design team was largely
conceptual rather than specific, partly due to LGA's requirements. The need
was for a fast solution; loss of income as time passed without a building in
which to conduct business became more crucial. People were not willing to
wait for the plan to be developed in a more specific way.
Support for the plan faltered as disappointing market survey results came
in, the expected federal money did not materialize, and the unpopular HUD hous-
ing was tacked onto the project. As buildings were constructed in block one,
which was to have been reserved for future expansion, and the back half of
block two, which was to have been included in the initial phase of development,
the possibilities were severely restricted and more time was lost.
Context
When Crescent City was first laid out in the 1860's, it had two primary
"reasons for being": the railroad and the grain elevator. At the time, the
town was relatively self-sufficient and the commercial strip which grew up along
Highway 24 served most of the needs of the residents. But later changes favored
development elsewhere: the railroad ceased to carry passengers; Route 24 was
widened and paved, and major north-south routes intersected 24 elsewhere (Route 45
at Oilman and 1 at Watseka; much later, 1-57 at Oilman and 1-65 in Indiana. See
Fig. 1). All of these factors reduced Crescent City status as a favorable
business or industrial location relative to other towns. Oilman, Watseka,
Kankakee, Kentland (Indiana), and, further away, Chicago and Champaign-Urbana ,
grew for various reasons. Easily accessible from Crescent City, they provided
jobs and low prices only their larger competitive markets could stand.
In 1970, Crescent City was no longer self-sufficient and had no need for
commercial development aside from the "convenience" type. Anything beyond that
could survive only if it were able to attract business from outside the com-
munity. This was not attempted, partly because of the financial risk involved,
and partly because bringing in "outsiders" was generally felt to be undesirable.
Goals
There was no agreement on goals for the redevelopment project, relative to
its nature and scope. The design team worked primarily through the village
officials and CCDC board, who had optimistic, long-term goals for the project.
They felt that business could be attracted to the town to support a somewhat
more ambitious development. Many community residents, however, withheld needed
49
CONCLUSIONS
Goals (cont.)
support because they took a more conservative position. They preferred not to
risk competing with larger nearby towns and were content to settle for a small
convenience- type shopping development. In actuality, the proposed development
was not far removed from that; but many people misunderstood it, having trouble
visualizing it based on the architects' drawings and model. They tended to
visualize a much more extensive shopping center than what was intended.
A few individuals with short-term goals controlled the situation because
they owned key parcels of land. The formal power structure was not the control-
ling force in this situation. The scale of decision-making was at the level of
individual goals, rather than community-wide goals.
Scale
Crescent City has avoided many of the problems of larger towns and cities
simply because of its size. There are few public services (no police force, no
sewers), thus capital expenditures are low and so are taxes. The low taxes and
lack of big-city problems are important reasons why people live there, although
local family ties seem to be the most prevalent reason. All of this helps to
explain why there is a tendency to resist local change, and a fear of ambitious
or larger-scale development.
As mentioned earlier, some of the qualitative, rather than quantitative,
implications of small-town scale are very important. The formal power structure
in Crescent City, the Village Board, was not effectively in control of land use
in the two-block area. The re-activated zoning ordinance was not enforced all
the time; possible actions such as property condemnation were threatened but
never used, to our knowledge.
We can make two observations about this. First, as a result of the explosion,
the Village Board was forced into a new role for which it was not prepared. Pre-
viously, its functions were to manage the water supply system, and to let con-
tracts for small-scale repairs and improvements on public property. But as the
elected decision-making body for the town, it was expected to manage clean-up
after the explosion, and eventually, to manage redevelopment. The design team
could only make recommendations — ultimately the decisions, and their enforcement,
had to rest on local officials, either of the CCDC or the Village Board.
The second observation is really a continuation of the first. Every indivi-
dual in Crescent City was playing more than one role during any given phase.
Sometimes these roles came into conflict. Village Board and CCDC board members
were also neighbors, business contacts, churchgoers and Softball teammates, to
people who opposed the redevelopment plan. While the Boards as entities had
collective goals for the community, the individuals who made them up had their
own individual goals which sometimes took higher priority. They were reluctant
to enforce some things at the risk of losing friendships or business. Again,
the scale of decision-making was individual rather than community-wide.
50
c
Explosion
D
Need for
rebui Iding
determined
Diaaram of Rebuilding Process
Rebui Idi ng
group formed
PTtonol
Influence
Rebuilding
plan formulated
P'on
Pr omot ion
G roups and
Individuoh with
resources needed
for rebuilding
Mobilize resources
according to
rebuilding plan
Mobilize resources
but not according
to rebuilding plan
Do not mobiliie
resources
Plan
Implementation
Non- plan
Implemento ion
Revi'g
plon
"O
Figure 18
pg
Effects of ^
resource decisions
51
>■
(D
J
Q
I
h
Ul
METHODOLOGY
Large scale disaster causes many serious problems of recovery. Rebuild-
ing is but one aspect of the total problem, and while not the most immediate
one, it appears that it may be the most pervasive one. We chose to study
Crescent City because the magnitude of the rebuilding problems it had to face
seemed disproportionate to its small size. We t mght this would make the
rebuilding process more apparent than under normal circumstances. In the case
of Crescent City the slow, incremental changes tiat usually occur in the built
environment materialized overnight, thus providing a unique opportunity to ob-
serve the process of change in a small toxvm magnified in scope and intensified
in t ime .
It was our desire to collect information abouL the rebuilding of Crescent
City, then develop a model of the rebuilding process from the town's own ex-
periences, rather than testing the validity of other process models of rebuild-
ing. At a later time our process model of rebuilding i:i Crescent City could
be compared to other models.
One of the stipulations of our research grant from the National Science
Foundation was that the research be interdisciplinary; considering the broad
scope of useful inquiry for phenomena occurring at the larger scale, we felt
an interdisciplinary approach was mandatory. If the results of our interdis-
ciplinary inquiry were to be expressed in a format which was usable for the de-
sign and planning professions, the information needed to be integrated across
disciplinary lines rather than divided by them. This goal seemed achievable if
our analysis was drawn directly from the data.
For these reasons the development of a conceptual framework for analysis
was the most important, yet most difficult, aspect of our research. The frame-
work had to account for all useful units of analysis — with each unit in proper
relation to other units. The structure of this framework was not substantially
completed until the final stage of data collection began, and has since been
refined as the analysis has progressed.
Data Collection
Data was collected in three major stages: 1) pre-summer, 2) summer-
background, and 3) summer- focused.
Pre-summer . Our main intent was to determine the availability of documen-
tary sources of data such as town histories and local newspaper accounts. We
also obtained a copy of the original rebuilding plan report and began to con-
sider how we wanted to initially approach the town. At this time we were un-
sure of how townspeople would react to our research. It was decided that of-
ficial approval from the mayor and village board would be necessary.
Summer-background . Our intent in this stage was to collect a wide range
of information about the town and surrounding region that would serve to es-
tablish a context for more specific data collected later. We also tried to
develop a variety of data sources to allow the possibility of cross-validating
information.
Documentary sources were much more reliable than other data sources for
exact dates of events. Among these documentary sources were: local newspapers,
county planning documents, village board minutes from before the explosion to
the present time, and two county histories. Dates and "event" descriptions
from these sources were extremely useful in creating a framework for questions
during later interviews.
54
METHODOLOGY (cont.)
The unstructured interviews conducted in this stage were used to obtain
general information about the town, about immediate reactions to the explosion,
and about the town's rebuilding. Initially, we interviewed principal people
in the town (fire chief, mayor, village board members, etc.). Recommendations
for further interviewees were asked for at the end of each interview. At
first, recommendations were our principal basis for selecting people to talk
to. After we became more confident of our acceptance by the townspeople, and
as particular recommendations recurred, we used our data as a basis for making
selections.
Two interviewers were sent on an interview whenever possible. Notes were
recorded, then written up at a later time. Initially, two sets of notes were
used as a check, since most of our researchers were not experienced interviewers.
Tape recorders were considered, but were decided against because we thought they
might make people more reluctant to speak. Also, we did not have the resources
to transcribe a large number of tapes rapidly.
During this phase of data collection, we were particularly fortunate to
gain access to all the correspondence between the principal design team archi-
tect and various people connected with the rebuilding. We were also able to ob-
tain all preliminary drawings and sketches produced by the design team for the
duration of the rebuilding. The content of these drawings was used later in
our analysis to validate some of our assumptions about rebuilding phases.
Summer — focused . Our intent in this stage of data collection was to closely
examine the rebuilding period in Crescent City. We felt it important to look for
meaningful sequences of actions which led to particular outcomes within the re-
building period. Data collection was directed by the conceptual framework de-
veloped just prior to this stage of research. (See diagram below. Fig. 19)
Influence!
Lot
Changes
Effecit
Figure 19
Simplified Conceptual Framework, July, 1977
We were specifically interested in changes associated with lots in the two
block rebuilding area, what influenced each change, and how each change effected
changes on other lots.
Land acquisition and transfer information was obtained from the county
courthouse. Other documentary information was obtained from newspapers and or-
ganizations directly involved in the rebuilding. Three data collection tools —
a businessman's interview, a "peoples" interview, and a questionnaire — were
developed in this stage.
The businessman's interview (see Appendix) was used to get information
concerning the business climate at the time of the explosion and at the present
time, reactions to various events during the rebuilding period, and individual
factors which influenced the businessmens' decisions about rebuilding. This
interview was given to nine of fifteen businessmen within the two block re-
building area and to seven of nineteen businessmen outside Lhis area but within
Crescent City.
55
METHODOLOGY (cont.)
Late in this stage of data collection we were concerned about obtaining in-
formation only from people who appeared to be closely related to the rebuilding —
or who were referred to us by those previously interviewed. The "peoples" in-
terview and questionnaire were used to collect information from a random sample
of people within the community.
The "peoples" interview was a direct outgrowth of our conceptual framework.
In this type of interview the interviewer was to probe, from a set of previously
chosen events, for influences upon, and effects t , each event. This interview
technique was used for only six interviews before summer data collection was
finished.
The questionnaire was intended to be used mainly as a check upon informa-
tion gathered previously. Its content was similar to that of the businessman's
interview, and it was mailed with a self-addressed, stamped envelope included
for return. Seventy-five questionnaires were distrijuted within the corporate
limits of Crescent City and seventy-five outside the corporate limits, but within
five miles of the town center. Ten of these were returned, not delivered, and
forty one were returned in some stage of completion.
For our purposes the interviews generally provided more useful information
than the questionnaire, because the interviewer could correct misinterpretations
of questions and pursue interesting lines of inquiry for which the questionnaire
would provide only one answer. People were generally reluctant to provide lengthy
responses to open-ended questions on the questionnaire — while not finding it dif-
ficult to elaborate on their answers in an interview. The questionnaire seemed
more useful in testing very specific hypotheses which could be answered with a
few words.
Data Analysis
Our data analysis was carried out in two parts: 1) concurrent with data
collection, and 2) after summer fieldwork was completed.
Early analysis . Early in the summer-background stage of data collection,
we analyzed the content of seven of the first interviews in terms of themes
discussed. We attempted to generate a list of categories which could be used
for later analysis and intended to periodically update the list. However,
this attempt was discontinued before we moved into the summer-focused stage;
it would have required an inordinate amount of time beyond our manpower limits.
Also, the structure of the interviews proved to be too inconsistent for formal
analysis .
By the end of summer data collection, we had compiled a master list of all
events related to the rebuilding period. All our documentary sources were used
for the compilation of this list.
Later analysis . After the summer we reviewed the events list and chose
six key events which seemed pivotal in the final outcome of rebuilding. Each
key event was selected because it reduced the number of alternative reLux_ding
solutions possible. These six key events were then used to break the rebuilci'ng
process into five phases. Also at this time we developed a list of roles which
seemed pertinent to the rebuilding, based on our own impressions. Later we
reviewed early interviews and businessman interviews, noting important roles.
We then compared the two sets of role formulations and formed a revised list of
roles related to the rebuilding.
Next, the roles were examined within the context of rebuilding phases.
Role interactions were noted within each time-phase, and sequences of actions
culminating in the final event of the phase were traced as the data would allow.
When it was possible to infer decision rules for the actions of an individual
56
METHODOLOGY (cont.)
playing a particular role, the rules were noted as "policy".
Finally, the design team's drawings were correlated with the rebuilding
phases according to their dates of completion. Each was then examined in
light of the events which occurred during the phase in which it was drawn.
Some implications for further research . At the beginning of our study
we assumed that Crescent City's rebuilding process wns controlled by public
policy formulated by the town government, much the same as a large city would
promulgate a renewal policy. Our study suggests that public policy does not
exist at the scale of a small town in the same way it does in a large urban
setting — the force of local government being ameliorated by other factors at
the smaller scale. This suggests (since policy does play a part in any re-
building) that it may be useful to consider the concept of public policy along
a continuum of scale from small town to large city. It would be helpful to
define this continuum more explicitly. Comparative studies of the rebuilding
process of towns at a similar scale would be a first step in testing such a
hypothesis.
57
X
D
2
ui
a
a
<
THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION STUDENT-ORIGINATED STUDIES PROGRAM
The Crescent City research project was funded by a grant from the National Sci-
ence Foundation under its Student-Originated Studies Program. The following
excerpt from the National Science Foundation's "Guide for Preparation of Pro-
posals (1976)" describes "^he nature and intent ol the program.
"The Student-Originated Studies Program is designed to provide teams
of college students with experience in independent, self-directed study
in which they initiate, plan and direct their own research activities
with minimal supervision. Each project is prnblem-orienLtd and seeks
an understanding of and possible solutions to a local problem that has
immediate relevance to society.
"Proposals may be submitted in any combination of science disciplines
but they must present an interdisciplinary approach to solving a problem.
The proposal should describe the scientific research the student group
wishes to carry out and give details as to the funds required for that
purpose. The research problem must be not only amenable to a scientific
solution, but one requiring an investigation that draws upon several sci-
ence disciplines. The emphasis in the Program is on independent study
as an educational vehicle to train the kinds of scientific personnel that
our society will need to solve interdisciplinary problems."
The field work for tills rcsearcli project was done primarily during a ten-week
period in the summer of 1977. llu: team, under ths auspices of the Department
of Architecture at the University of Illinois, was made up of seven students
representing the fields of anthropology, community psychology, sociology,
agricultural economics, urban planning, and architecture.
60
DEFINITION OF TERMS
role : a group or individual having a unique set of goals and a common
perception of the state of the system during a specific time period
(a phase in this case). Any individual can fit into many role groups
during the same phase. Depending on the nature of the decision to be
made, the individual will act according to the policy of one of his
roles.
policy : a set of rules, stated or unstated, telling one what decision to
make in terms of one's present perception of the state of the
system. ^
event : Two types of events are documented in the description of the rebuild-
ing process. The first is a change to a lot within the two-block com-
mercial area: sale of the lot, sale of an option on the lot, or con-
struction of a building on the lot. The second type of event is an
occurrence which sets a direction, or establishes a policy, relative
to the redevelopment process as a total.
community : a physical boundary within which people share a sense of identity
(not necessarily "belonging"). In the case of Crescent City, all peo-
ple within the school district are included in the community because
that is an important activity which focuses identity. When asked,
people usually mentioned the churches, school, and grain elevator as
three nodes which drew people together. School district is the most easily
defined In physical terms.
lot : parcel of ground whose boundaries are legally defined.
land : ground without regard to legalized boundaries.
resource : that which is necessary to achieve a goal.
goal : a desired outcome.
phase : a discrete time period between two events which are pivotal in terms
of the final outcome of Crescent City's rebuilding.
^ Adapted from Richard Bellman, "Dynamic Programming," Science , (July
1966), 34-37.
61
CRESCENT CITY TODAY
Agriculture
Businesses
Schools and Churches
Government
Geology
Iroquois County is a sparsely populated, agri-
cultural county and the Crescent City area is no
exception. Some of the richest farmland in the
country can be found there, with principal crops
being corn and soybeans. As in many rural areas,
a few very large families make up a sizable part
of the population. Most of the residents of
Crescent City are descended from families of
agricultural background or are retired farmers
themselves. The town's grain elevator is an
important economic asset and serves the surround-
ing area.
Crescent City has a few medium-sized business
operations, including among others a lumberyard,
boat factory, and several construction contractors.
Many of the residents work in the surrounding
towns, primarily Gilman, Watseka, and Kankakee
(see Fig.l ). Most shopping is done in these
places as well.
A grade school and high school are located in the
town. The schools are the objects of much local
pride, and consolidation into larger school dis-
tricts has traditionally been opposed. Crescent
City also has three churches: Catholic, Lutheran
(the largest congregation) and Methodist.
Local governmental units include two townships
(Crescent and Iroquois) and the elected Village
Board of Trustees. Town government is primarily
concerned with the water supply system, as there
is no police department. Public expenditures are
minimal and thus taxes are very low; an issue of
current concern is the lack of a sewage treatment
facility.
The soil in the area is sediment from a glacial lake,
Lake Watseka, which is believed to have dried up some
14,000 years ago. This tight, fine-grained soil does
not accept fluids rapidly and makes a gent "■ ly sound
foundation material. The water table is high ! ider
most of the region, and much of the town's watei: is
supplied by the numerous local artesian wells. Sur-
face water drains to McCutcheon's Slough, which
skirts the southern and western edges of town (Fig.
5) . The slough empties into Spring Creek to the north-
west and eventually into the Iroquois River (Fig.l ).
Like that of the rest of central Illinois, the local
topography is very flat; total relief in the immediate
area is not much more than fifty feet. An interesting
geological feature is an arch-shaped warping of the
bedrock between Crescent City and Watseka. Natural
62
CRESCENT CITY TODAY (cont.)
gas has been injected into this storage dome by
Northern Illinois Gas Company, in a convenient
location to meet the Chicago suburban demand.
Physical Form An examination of the map of Crescent City (Fig. 5)
provides much information about its physical form.
U.S. 24, a well-traveled east-west route, cuts the
town in half along with the railroad tracks which
it parallels. Most of the town's businesses, be-
fore 1970 as well as today, have frontage on 24.
Illinois 49 delineates the western edge of town.
The imposing structures of the grain elevators on
the north side of the tracks are visual landmarks,
as are the nearby town hall and water tower, located
between 24 and the tracks.
Housing is overwhelmingly of the single-family de-
tached type, although there is one apartment build-
ing in the town. Styles and sizes vary widely; some
of the houses date back to the late 1800' s. Newer
subdivisions are obvious on the map, in the south-
western corner of town and the northern edges of
town. The town is growing steadily but very slowly.
63
DEVELOPMENT BEFORE 1970
Early Settlement
Impact of Transportation
Early records tell us that Iroquois and Illinois
Indians populated Iroquois County. Although they
warred with each other, apparently they were friend-
ly to the white people who began to arrive in the
1830' s. The first white settlers in the Crescent
City area were English descendants migrating westward
from Ohio and Indiana. A substantial impetus for de-
velopment occurred in 1858 when tracks were laid for
the Peoria and Equawka Extension Railroad (now
Toledo, Peoria and Western). The railroad brought
with it a larger market, and cultivated farms began
to dot the landscape. Much of the land was swampy
prairieland, however, and it was not until German im-
migrants arrived in 1865 that the area was drained
and tiled. By 1869, a railroad station and switch
were built approximately halfway between the towns
of Oilman and Watseka. Immediately thereafter, the
town was given the name of Crescent City and was
laid out and platted.
The railroad carried freight and passengers, although
passenger service was discontinued in 1928. U.S.
Route 24, the "Cornbelt Highway," parallels the rail-
road in Crescent City and together they bisect it.
This highway brought Crescent City much of its business,
and was a major physical form determinant as well.
State Route 49, a minor north-south arterial forming
the western edge of town, has had less impact than
Route 24, serving mostly local needs, as it substan-
tially parallels other larger north-south routes.
These roads were not paved until the 1920 's, although
they were in existence earlier.
The local completion in the last decade of Interstate
57, which connects Chicago and Memphis, has had a pro-
nounced effect on the entire Crescent City area. Seven
miles west of Crescent City, the 1-57 interchange at
Route 24 in Oilman, Illinois, has decreased traffic
on 49 while increasing it on 24, which now acts as a
feeder for both 1-57 and 1-65 in Indiana.
64
QUESTIONNAIRE
THE INFORMATION FROM THIS SECTION WILL HELP US IN DETERMINING THE GENERAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRESCENT CITY AREA RESIDENTS. PLEASE CIRCLE THE
APPROPRIATE LETTER FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
Demographic Data
1. Sex: a. male
Are you the person to whom
this questionnaire was addressed?
female
2. What Is your marital status?
a. married
b. separated
c. divorced
d. widowed
e. never married
yes
no
3.
5.
What is your relation to the head of the household?
a. head
b. spouse
c. other (specify)
Your age is:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f .
below 20
20-30
30-A0
40-50
50-60
60-70
70+
What Is your occupation or job title?
a. professional worker
technical worker
sales worker
manager or administrator
clerical worker
foreman
laborer
craftsman
farmer or farm worker
service worker
machine operator
full-time homemaker
student
unemployed
retired
other (specify)
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
h.
i.
J-
k.
1.
m.
n.
o.
P-
6. What town do you work in?
7. What was your total family income before taxes last year, 1976?
a. under $5,000
b. $5,000~$10,000
c. $10,000— $15,000
d. $15,000— $20,000
e. $20,000— $30,000
f. $30,00CH-
65
What is the highest grade of school you have completed?
a. no formal education
b. eighth grade or less
c. some high school
d. some high school plus technical-vocational school
e. high school graduate
f. technical-vocational school beyond high school
g. some college, no degree
h. college graduate
1. some graduate school, no degree
j. graduate or professional degree
Do you have any religious affiliation?
a. yes b. no
If yes , what is it?
10. Do you attend a church in Crescent City?
a. yes b. no
11. Do you consider yourself from Crescent City?
a. yes b. no
If no, where do you say you are from?
12. How long have you lived in the Crescent City area?
13. Were either of your parents born in the Crescent City area?
a. yes b. no
66
THIS SECTION WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT CRESCENT CITY WAS LIKE BEFORE THE
DISASTER. PLEASE CIRCLE OR ANSWER BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
14.
15.
16,
17.
18.
Were you working outside Crescent City in 1970?
a. yes b. no
Did you do most of the weekly grocery shopping for your family?
a. yes b. no
If no, who did it?
Where did you buy your groceries in 1970?
When Crescent City had its own grocery store, did you use it:
a. most of the time
b. occasionally
c. hardly ever
d. not at all
19. What physical features in Crescent City prior to the disaster did you
think were most distinctive?
20. If you could bring back some aspect of the old business district, what
would it be?
21. If you were going to have a business in Crescent City, where would you
locate it? Please indicate on this map.
N<>«»<-^
67
PLEASE USE THE LIST OF BUSINESSES BELOW TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (8) QUESTIONS,
YOU MAY WISH TO REFER TO THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE LAST PAGE OF
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
22,
23.
24.
25,
26.
27,
Which businesses were most successful in 1970?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
Which businesses were most important to the town?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
Which businesses did you most often recommend to friends?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
Which of these businesses gave credit in 1970?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
Are there places on this list you would go when out with friends?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
Are there places on this list you would go when out with family?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
28. How often did you use these businesses?
(Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.)
a. often b. occasionally c. seldom d. never
29. How satisfied were you with them?
(Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.)
a. liked a lot b. liked c. didn't care d. disliked
detested
(1) Hill's Feed and Poultry
(2) Simpson's Auto Repair
(3) Nelda's Beauty Salon
(4) Lavoie's Standard Oil Agent
(5) Leo Scheldt's
(6) Paul Miner's Restaurant
(7) Meyer's Launderette
(8) Midwest Litho Printing
(9) Audrey and Rink's
(lO)Morrison Construction
(ll)C.C. Farmer's Elevator
(12)Sea Sprite Boat Co.
Q.28/Q.29
/
(13)
/
(14)
/
(15)
/
(16)
/
(17)
/
(18)
/
(19)
/
(20)
/
(21)
/
(22)
/
(23)
/
(24)
Q.28/Q.29
Hofmeister's Hardware
Diane's Beauty Shop
Marilyn's Beauty Shop
Jenkin's Barber Shop
Crescent Oil Service
Gibson's Standard
Morton's Piano Service
Hoffman's Shell Station_
U.S. Post Office
Ennen's Tool and Die
Schmidt's Steak House
Alexander Lumber Co .
68
THIS SECTION CONCERNS EVENTS FOLLOWING THE EXPLOSION, PLEASE CIRCLE OR ANSWER
BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
30. How were you affected by the explosion? (Circle all that apply.)
a. extensive property damage
b. slight property damage
c. no property damage
d. extensive personal injury
e. slight personal injury
f. no personal injury
31. Did any of your close relatives sustain extensive property damage or
personal injury?
a. yes b. no
32. Which businesses did you miss the most?
33. What goods and services were difficult to obtain after the explosion?
34. Are there places outside Crescent City where you became a regular customer?
a. yes b. no
35. Aside from normal business activities, what other things did you do in
business district?
Where did you do these things?
Did the disaster change that?
a. yes b. no
36. Were you a member of the Development Corporation?
a. yes b. no
37. If n£, why did you decide not to participate?
38. How did you hear about the Development Corporation?
39. What influenced you to join the Development Corporation?
69
40. Did you attend Development Corporation meetings?
a. yes b. no
41. Do you still participate in the Development Corporation?
a. yes b. no
42. Who in Crescent City do you think would have benefited most from the ac-
tivities of the Development Corporation?
43. Did you hear about any plans for low- income and elderly housing in Crescent
City after the explosion?
a. yes b. no
If yes , when did you first hear about it? (specify month and year.)
What did you think of it? Were you:
a. strongly in support of it
b. in support of it
c. neutral
d. against it
e. strongly against
44. Did you know that architects were drawing up plans for rebuilding
Crescent City?
(You may wish to refer to the drawing on the back of the last page of
this questionnaire.)
a. yes b. no
45. Did you ever see any of these plans?
a. yes b. no
If yes , when?
46. Did you talk to any of the architects personally?
a. yes b. no
47. Did you go to the town meeting at the high school when the rebuilding plans
were presented?
70'
"WK:© a ftRC/^ , lU^nEAD !
A8. After it was over, what did you personally think about the meeting?
49. What did other people think about the meeting?
a. liked the plan
b. felt wary about the plan
c. were undecided about the plan
d. did not like the plan
e. other (specify)
50. Did you attend any other meetings that dealt with rebuilding?
a. yes b. no
If yes , when? (Specify month and year)
51. What did you like or dislike about the plans for rebuilding Crescent City?
52. What were some of your ideas about rebuilding Crescent City?
Please draw them on this map.
iTf'. '.W.
iTK^-KS:
r
■^ K~
uhT^h^tT
^ f
u^'
"^msK
^ /
^ \
t
1 r
71
THIS SECTION CONCERNS INFORMATION ABOUT INFLUENCES ON REBUILDING.
PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR ANSWERS AND RANK THEM BELOW.
53. l^ich of the following were most influential in getting Crescent City
rebuilt? Name three (3):
a. Development Corporation
b. mayor
c. trustees
d. local businessmen
e. other local organizations
f. state government
g. federal government
h. individuals on their own
i. architects and planners
j. influential local families
k. other (specify)
Could you rank these in order of importance?
1.
2.
3.
How did they influence rebuilding?
THIS SECTION CONCERNS A BRIEF PICTURE OF BUSINESSES USAGE TODAY.
PLEASE CIRCLE OR ANSWER BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
54. Which do you like better:
a. parking in business district before 1970 (on-street parking)
b. parking in business district today (off-street parking)
Why?
55. Can Crescent City support new businesses?
a. yes b. no
If yes , what kinds?
56. What will Crescent City be like ten years from now?
a. declining
b . same
c. growing
Why do you think so?
72
57. When you go up town, do you usually walk or drive?
58. How would you describe to a stranger what Crescent City looks like?
PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF THE BEST ANSWER.
59. Where would you usually go for:
Crescent City
Watseka
Oilman
Kank
weekly grocery shopping
2
3
4
convenience grocery items
2
3
4
clothes
2
3
4
appliances
2
3
4
gasoline
2
3
4
tools and hardware
2
3
4
repairs
2
3
4
banking
2
3
4
doctors and dentists
2
3
4
drugs and prescriptions
2
3
4
a new car
2
3
4
Christmas shopping
2
3
4
Other
RECREATION
movies
eating out
going out with friends
going out with your family
vacations
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
73
PLEASE USE THE LIST OF BUSINESSES BELOW TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (8) QUESTIONS.
60. Which businesses are most successful today?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
61. Which businesses are most important to the town?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
62. Which businesses do you most often recommend to friends?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
63. Which of these businesses give credit today?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
64. Are there places on this list you would go when out with friends?
(Please write the numbers coreesponding to the businesses here.)
65. Are there places on this list you would go when out with family?
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.)
66.
67.
How often do you use these businesses?
(Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.)
a. often b. occasionally c. seldom d. never
How satisfied are you with them?
(Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.)
a. like a lot b. like c. don't care d. dislike e. detest
(1) Leo Scheldt's
(2) Sennett's Market
(3) A-Way Grain Elevator
(4) Audrey and Rink's
(5) Glen Schiewe's Print Shop
(6) Horton's Piano Service
(7) Light's Hardware
(8) Hoffman's Shell Station
(9) Gibson's Standard
(10) Kountry Kettle
(11) U.S. Post Office
Q.66/Q.67
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
Ennen's Tool and Die
Peter's Construction
Miner's Coin Laundry
Ward's Car Wash
Alexander Lumber Co .
Jenkin's Barber Shop
Gocken Standard Station
Gene Paap Masonry
Crescent Oil Service
Sterrenberg Insurance
Jack's Idle Hour
Q.66/Q.67
/
7"
/
'f
~r
7"
T
7"
7"
/"
7'
74
WHAT KIND OF TOWN WOULD YOU LIKE CRESCENT CITY TO BE? BELOW IS A LIST OF
CHARACTERISTICS OF A SMALL TOWN THAT ARCHITECTS MIGHT HAVE CONSIDERED IN RE-
BUILDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT. INDICATE WHAT KIND OF TOWN YOU WOULD LIKE
BY PLACING A CHECK IN THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN.
7.
9.
I reject
this
Not ray
concern
Desirable Important Essential
A town where you
know everybody .
A town where new
families settle
down.
A town that is distinct
in appearance from
other towns.
A town that keeps
growing.
A town where people
keep their yards up.
A self-sufficient
town.
A town with parks
and landscaping.
A town with industrial
development .
A town where each
building has its
own character.
10. A town where people
would come to retire.
11. A town with lots of
different kinds of
people.
12. A town that people
have built themselves.
13. A town that outsiders
like to visit.
Are there any other comments you would like to make about the rebuilding, or
any suggestions or comments about this research project?
THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE IS FOR YOUR USE IN RETURNING THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELPING US I
75
The Structured Interview: Interviewer's Text
STATE THE FOLLOWING BEFORE THE INTERVIEW BEGINS.
My name is . I am a student at the University of Illinois
and part of a research team which has received a grant from the National Sci-
ence Foundation. As you probably already know, our research team is studying
the response of Crescent City to the 1970 tank car explosion. Since most of
the business section was destroyed in the explosion, the rebuilding of the lo-
cal businesses is a central part of our study. This interview includes ques-
tions on what business was like in 1970, how you were affected by the explosion,
your decisions about rebuilding, and about business today in Crescent City.
I will read the question and record your answer. Certain questions have
many possible responses — for these I will show you a card with a list of an-
swers on them. You may then tell me which answer seems best. If you do not
understand a question, tell me, and I will repeat it. You do not have to
answer any questions you feel uncomfortable about. All your answers will be
kept in strict confidence.
76
30. What were the arrangements?
31. Did anyone else own it with you?
a. yes (go to 32) b. no (go to 33)
32. Who owned it with you?
33. How many people were working for you at any one time in 1970?
34. Did you have problems getting employees?
35. Did you give credit in 1970?
a. yes b. no
REACTION TO EXPLOSION (CIRCLE CORRECT ANSWER).
36. How did the explosion affect your business?
a. It was completely destroyed
b. Part of it was salvaged
c. Other (specify)
37. Immediately after the explosion, how did you feel about rebuilding?
I planned to:
a. rebuild immediately
b. wait and see
c. not rebuild
d. other (specify)
EFFECTS OF EXPLOSION
38. Did you have insurance?
a. yes (go to 39) b. no (go to 41)
39. What was covered?
40. How did you feel about your insurance compensation?
a. very unsatisfied b. neutral c. very satisfied
41. Did you receive compensation from the TP&W?
a. yes (go to 42) b. no (go to 43)
42. How did you feel about this compensation?
a. very unsatisfied b. neut al c. very satisfied
43. Was the business your only source of income at this time?
a. yes b. no
44. Were the other sources sufficient to support you and your family?
a. yes b. no
SHOW LIST OF CATEGORIES FOR INFLUENCES
45. Here is a list of things that may have influenced your decision to rebuild
(or not). Please check the items that had the most influence on your deci-
sion to stay or not to stay in business after the explosion. Any questions?
46. Were there any others that you feel should be mentioned?
a. yes (what?) b. no
47. Of the ones you have checked, which '•'. s the most influential?
48. How?
49. Which was the second most influential?
50. How?
CATEGORIES FOR INFLUENCES— WHETHER OR NOT TO STAY IN BUSINESS
Financial
Railroad settlement: TP&W
_Availability of loans
Potential for governmental assistance
_Income from other sources
Interviewer:
Date:
Person Interviewed:
BRING OUT OLD TOWN PHOTOGRAPHS. RECORD BUILDINGS IDENTIFIED AND ORDER OF IDEN-
TIFICATION ON DRAWING.
1. Would you show me which was your business, building, lot?
2. Could you point out what some of the other buildings are?
IF NOT ABLE TO USE PHOTOGRAPHS, USE THESE QUESTIONS.
3. Could you describe the location of your business?
4. Could you describe where some of the other businesses were in relation to yours?
PLEASE TELL ME THE LETTER OF THE ANSWER WHICH SEEMS BEST.
5. In your opinion, how was the business community doing in 1970?
a. very poor
b. poor
c. fair
d. good
e. excellent
6. Could Crescent City have supported expansion of the individual businesses
that were already there?
a. yes (go to 7) b. no (go to 8)
7. Which ones? SHOW LIST OF BUSINESS, ASK THEM TO SAY LETTER OF BUSINESSES
8. Could Crescent City have supported new businesses in 1970?
a. yes (go to 9) b. no (go to 10)
9. What kind?
10. Which businesses were doing particularly well in 1970? SHOW LIST OF BUSINESSES
11. Would you rank the top 5? (response card) (Of the ones you have chosen, which
one was best, second best, third best, etc.)
12. Which businesses were mostly used by local people?
13. Which businesses attracted people from out of town?
14. Where do these people come from?
15. What percentage of your business came from Route 24?
16. What percentage of your business came from Route 49?
17. How was your own business doing in 1970?
a. very poor (go to 20) b. poor (go to 20) c. fair (go to 20)
d. good (go to 18) e. excellent (go to 18)
18. Did you have any plans for expansion in 1970?
a. yes (go to 19) b. no (go to 20)
19. What were they?
20. Did anyone else own the business with you?
a. yes (go to 21) b. no (go to 22)
21. Who owned it with you? (name)
22. What kinds of people used your business? (farmers, housewives, young people, etc.)
23. Did you own the building in 1970?
a. yes (go to 24) b. no (go to 26) .
24. Did anyone else own the building with you? I
a. yes (go to 25) b. no (go to 29) I
25. Who owned it with you? (name)
26. Were you renting the building?
a. yes (go to 27) b. no (go to 29)
27. From whom did you rent? (names)
28. What type of lease did you have?
29. Did you own the lot in 1970?
a. yes (go to 31) b. no (go to 30)
78
I
^
Financial (cont.)
Taxes
Insurance
^Debts requiring immediate action
Business
Availability of customers
_Other businesses in town
After the explosion, construction of first new buildings
Competition with businesses outside town
Social
Family
Local leaders (other than government)
Other businessmen
_Actlons of townspeople
Advice from friends
Availability of Construction
Immediate availability of vacant buildings
Availability of pre-fab buildings
Availability of desired location
Official
^Zoning
Action of Crescent City Development Corporation
Architect's plan
Town government
Personal
^Personal preferences
Goals and aspirations
Training and experience
Length of time in business before explosion
Other
Specify, if possible
CROSS OUT THE ONES THAT DON'T APPLY:
THIS PERSON CHOSE NOT TO REBUILD. GO .? 51.
THIS PERSON CHOSE TO REBUILD A DIFFEREN " BUSINES. GO TO 54.
THIS PERSON CHOSE TO REBUILD THE SAME BUSINESS. GO TO 59.
51. Did you sell your land?
a. yes (go to 52) b. no (go to 68)
52. To whom?
53. When?
GO TO 68.
54. What influenced you to change your business? Please choose three of the
following. (RESPONSE CARD)
a. personal preference for type of business
b. potentially greater market
c. easier supply
d. dissatisfaction with prior business
e. advice or recommendation from others
f. lower starting and operating cost
g. greater ease of operation
h. potentially greater profits
i. other (specify) _^
RECORD LETTERS IN ORDER CHOSEN.
79
55. Which was most influential?
56. How?
57. Which was the second most influential?
58. How?
BEFORE INTERVIEWING, CROSS OUT WHICHEVER OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DO NOT APPLY,
59. This person chose to rebuild on a new location. (go to 60)
This person chose to rebuild on the same location. (go to 65)
60. What influenced your decision to move? Please choose three of the items
on this list. (INTERVIEWER RECORD LETTERS OF THREE RESPONSES CHOSEN.)
(RESPONSE CARD)
61. Of the items you've chosen, which was the most influential?
62 . How?
63. Which was the second most influential?
64. How?
65. What things did you do to begin rebuilding?
(Prompts: Apply for a building permit? Hire a contractor? etc.)
66. Please tell me which of the following helped you finance your rebuilding.
(INTERVIEWER READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)
a. insurance
b. money from the TP&W
c. savings
d. income from other sources
e. If there were any sources I have not mentioned, please tell me what
they were.
67. Did you feel you had adequate financial backing to rebuild?
EVENTS: READ INTRODUCTION
68. In this section of the interview, I will ask you questions about some events
that took place after the explosion.
69. Did you attend the first meeting of Crescent City businessmen with destroyed
business?
a. yes (go to 69) b. no (go to 73)
70. How did you find out about the meeting?
71. What was decided at the meeting?
72. Was the meeting helpful in dealing with your own problems?
a. yes b. no
73. Which of the following governmental agencies did you have personal contact
with following the explosion? INTERVIEWER READ POSSIBLE ANSWERS.
a. SBA (go to 74)
b. IRS (go to 74)
c. County Housing Authority (go to 74)
d. local town government (go to 75)
e. other (specify) (go to 74)
f. none (go to 76)
74. How did you hear about the agency(s)? (go to 103)
75. Who did you talk to? When?
Were you helped?
a. yes (IF YES, READ FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.) How? What was the result
of the assistance?
b. no
76. Were you a member of the Development Corporation?
a. yes (go to 77) b. no (go to 80)
80
^
77. How did you hear about it?
78. What influenced you to join it?
79. Did you attend meetings?
a. yes (go to 81) b. no (go to 81)
80. Why did you decide not to participate? (go to 93)
81. Do you still participate in the Development Corporation?
a. yes (go to 83) b. no (go to 82)
82. When did you decide to stop participating? (USE RESPONSE CARD AS PROMPT.)
83. What did you think the purpose of the Development Corporation was?
84. Did the purchase of lots in the business district by the Village Board
influence your decision to rebuild (or not to rebuild)?
a. yes (go to 85) b. no (go to 86)
85. How?
86. Who in Crescent City do you think would have benefitted most from the
activities of the Development Corporation?
87. Do you think the Development Corporation was a good idea?
a. yes (go to 88) b. no (go to 89)
88. Why? (go to 90)
89. Why not? (go to 90)
90. Did you hear about any plans for low income and elderly housing in
Crescent City after the explosion?
a. yes (go to 91) b. no (go to 93)
91 When did you first hear about this? (USE RESPONSE CARD AS PROMPT.)
92. What did you think of it?
93. Did you know that architects were drawing up plans for rebuilding Crescent City?
a. yes (go to 94) b. no (go to 96)
94. Did you talk to any of the architects personally?
a. yes (go to 95) b. no (go to 96)
95. Did you talk about plans for your own building or the town as a whole? (go to 9o)
a. own building b. town as a whole c. both
BRING OUT PHOTOS OF ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS AND SAY,
Here are some drawings for rebuilding Crescent City.
96. Did you ever see any of these pirns?
a. yes (go to 97) b. no (go to 98)
97. When? (go to 127)
98. If the Crescent City business district looked like this, how would your
business be affected? (REPEAT FOR ALL NINE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS.)
If yes, how?
Drawing //I:
Drawing //2
Drawing //3
REPEAT QUESTIONS 96-98 FOR ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS
Drawing //4, //5, //6, //7, //8, //9.
99. If you were going to put a business in one of these buildings, which one
would you choose? (SHOW ALL DRAWINGS; MARK ON OVERLAY.)
100. Did you go to the town meeting at the high school when the rebuilding plans
were presented?
a. yes (go to 101) b. no (go to 104)
101. How did you find out about the meeting?
102. After it was over what did you personally think about the meeting?
81
103. What did other people think about the meeting? (RESPONSE CARD — CIRCLE
LETTER OF RESPONSE HERE) : (go to 106)
a. liked the plan b. felt wary about the plan
c. were undecided about the plan
d. other (specify)
104. Did you know about the meeting?
a. yes (go to 105) b. no (go to 106)
105. Why didn't you go?
106. When did you realize that the town would not get federal money for disaster
assistance? (USE RESPONSE CARD FOR PROMPT IF NEEDED.) (go to 107)
107. Were you aware that the village board received $25,000 from Governor Ogilvie
in the spring of 1971?
a. yes (go to 108) b. no (go to 110)
108. Did it have any effect on your activities?
a. yes (go to 109) b. no (go to 110)
109. How did it affect you?
NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUSINESS DISTRICT IN CRESCENT
CITY TODAY.
110. In your opinion how is the business district today? READ POSSIBLE RESPONSES
AND CIRCLE RESPONSE GIVEN HERE:
a. very poor b. poor c. fair d. good e. excellent
111. Do you think the Crescent City business community is doing better now than
it was in 1970?
a. yes b. no
112. In what way?
113. Can Crescent City support expansion of its present businesses?
a. yes (go to 114) b. no (go to 115)
114. Which ones?
115. Can Crescent City support new businesses?
a. yes (go to 116) b. no (go to 117)
116. What kind?
117. Which businesses are doing particularly well today? BRING OUT PHOTOS OF
NEW TOWN.
118. Would you rank the top five?
Rank one; rank two; rank three; rank four; rank five.
119. Which businesses attract people from out of town?
120. From where do they come?
121. Which businesses are used mainly by local people?
122. How is your present business doing? READ POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND CIRCLE
LETTER OF RESPONSE GIVEN.
a. poor (go to 124) b. fair (go to 124)
c. good (go to 123) d. excellent (go to 123)
123. Do you have any specific plans for expansion?
SHOW MAP OF TOWN TODAY AND PHOTO OPPOSITE IT.
124. Would you show me where the best locations are for business in Crescent City?
INTERVIEWER WRITE LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS HERE, NOTING WHETHER OFF ROUTE 24.
IF ON 24, NOTE WHETHER NORTH OR SOUTH, CENTER OF BLOCK OR CORNER, AND AT
WHICH CROSS STREETS.
125. What percentage of your business comes from Route 24?
I
82
126. What percentage of your business comes from Route 49?
127. Where is your major supplier?
128. What kind of people use your business? (PROMPT: farmers, housewives,
young people, etc.)
129. Are you the sole ovmer of your business?
a. yes (go to 131) b, no (go to 130)
130. Who owns it with you?
131. Do you own the building your business is in?
a. yes (go to 134) b. no (go to 132)
132. Do you rent?
a. yes (go to 134) b. no (go to 133)
133. What are the arrangements?
134. Do you feel you made the right decision about rebuilding (or not rebuilding)?
135. Is there anything else about the rebuilding that we haven't discussed that
you feel is important?
136. Do you have any questions about this interview or the research project?
Any suggestions?
81
BIBLIOGRAPHY Part I: Data Sources
Ackerman, William. "Crescent City, Illinois, Water Supply." Unpublished
report, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Illinois, 1970.
Babcock, Steven D. Industrial-Community Profile: Watseka, Illinois . Bloom-
ington, Indiana: Resource Development Internship Project, 1972.
Beckwith, H.W. History of Iroquois County . Chicago: H.H. Hill & Co., 1880.
Bergstrom, Robert E. "Geology for Planning at Crescent City, Illinois."
Urbana: Illinois State Geological Survey, 1970.
Bicentennial Historical Committee. History of Crescent City, Illinois .
Crescent City: Glen Scheiwe, 1976.
Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette . June, 1970 through August, 1971.
Chase, Julia. "A Case Study: Crescent City, Illinois." Unpublished paper.
University of Illinois, 1974.
Crescent City Development Corporation. Financial Transactions, August, 1970
through July, 1977.
Environetic Research. Iroquois County, Illinois: Ecological Impact Analysis,
Physical Resource and Transportation System Characteristics . Chicago:
Environetic Research, 1972.
Iroquois County, Illinois: Housing, Solid Waste Disposal, and Continuing
Planning Program . Chicago: Environetic Research, 1972.
Iroquois County, Illinois: Human Resource Environmental Plan. Chicago:
Environetic Research, 1972.
Evans, Campbell K. "Economic Base Analysis of Crescent City, Illinois." Un-
published report, Campbell Evans Real Estate Appraisals, Champaign,
Illinois, 1970.
Gilman Star . June, 1969 through June, 1971.
"1967 Quadrennial Tax Assessments." 20 July 1967.
"1971 Quadrennial Tax Assessments." 25 Nov. 1971.
"1975 Quadrennial Tax Assessments." 4 Sept. 1975.
Illinois Bell Telephone. Watseka/Crescent City Telephone Directory, 1970 .
Watseka/Crescent City Telephone Directory, 1977 .
Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs. Guide to Illinois State
Services . Springfield: Office of Research and Planning, 1976.
84
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Iroquois County, Illinois. Land Transfer Records, Crescent and Iroquois
Townships, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977.
Plat Book 1976: Index of Owners and City Street Maps . LaPorte, Indiana:
Town and Country Publishing Co., Inc., 1976.
Subdivision Regulations . Prepared by G.R. Justus and Associates, Ltd.,
Bowling Green, Kentucky, 1975.
Tax Assessment Records, Crescent and Iroquois Townships, 1970, 1976.
Technical Recommendations for a Recreational Area Licensing Ordinance .
Watseka, 111., 1976.
Triennial Atlas and Plat Book, 1969 . Rockford: Rockford Map Publishers,
1969.
Year Book. 1974-75 . Compiled by Donald Pursley, Watseka, 111., 1975.
Zoning Atlas . Prepared by G.R. Justus and Associates, Ltd., Bowling
Green, Kentucky, 1974.
Zoning Ordinance . Prepared by Environetic Research Corp., Bowling
Green, Kentucky, 1974.
Kankakee Dally Journal . June, 1970 through July, 1977.
Laz-Edwards-Dankert and Associated Consultants, Rebuilding Crescent City .
Champaign, Illinois: Laz-Edwards-Dankert and Illinois Department
of Local Government Affairs, 1970.
National Transportation Safety Board. Railroad Accident Report . Report
No. NTSB-RAR-72-2. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety
Board, 1972.
Small Business Administration. "Key Features of SBA's Principal Lending
Programs." Washington, D.C.: Office of Public Information, 1969.
"Loans to Local Development Companies." Washington, D.C.: Office
of Public Information, 1975.
"Small Business Administration: What it is. What it does." Washington,
D.C.: Office of Public Information, 1970.
Village of Crescent City, Illinois. Minutes of Village Board meetings from
April 4, 1960 through April 7, 1975.
Revised Ordinances . Mllford, Illinois: Milford Herald-News, 1960.
Zoning Ordinance . Crescent City, 1971.
85
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Watseka Dally Times-Republic . June, 1970 through August, 1977.
WCIA-TV (CBS). "CIA Reports: Crescent City Rebuilds." Video tape and tech-
nical script of October 20, 1971 documentary. Champaign, Illinois:
Dick Adams, WCIA-TV, producer.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Part 2: Methodology Sources
Bellman, Richard. "Dynamic Programming," Science (July 1966): 34-37.
Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication Research . Glencoe:
Free Press, 1952.
Boudon, Philippe. Lived-in Architecture . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972.
Cohen, Richard A. "Small Town Revitalization: Case Studies and a Critique,"
Journal of American Institute of Planners . 43 (January 1977): 3-12.
Collier, John Jr. Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method .
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967.
Dean, Lois R. Five Towns: A Comparative Community Study . New York: Random
House, 1967.
Downs, Roger M. , and Stea, David, eds. Image and Environment: Cognitive
Mapping and Spatial Behavior . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1973.
Gidel, Julie, ed. Evaluation of a Congregate Retirement Residence and Housing
Preferences of Prospective Occupants . Urbana: Department of Architec-
ture, University of Illinois, 1976.
Glaser, Barney and Strauss, Anselm. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.,
1967.
Gottschalk, Simon. Rural New Towns: Toward a National Policy . Cambridge:
Center for Economic Development, 1971.
Haas, J. Eugene, Kates, Robert W. , and Bouden, Martyn, J., eds.
Reconstruction Following Disasters . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977.
Haggett, Peter. Network Analysis in Geography . London: E. Arnold, 1969.
Hyland, Stanely E. et al. The East Urbana Energy Study, 1972-74:
Instrument Development, Methodological Assessment, and Base Data . Urbana:
Uhiversity of Illinois, 1975.
Hyman, Herbert H. et al., Interviewing in Social Research . Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry . San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964.
86
LaPiere, Richard T., ed. Methods in Social Research . New York: McGraw
Hill, 1952.
Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliott, eds. The Handbook of Social
Psychology , 2nd Ed. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. ,
1968.
Lynch, Devin. The Image of the City . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960.
Parshall, Steven A, and Preiser, Wolfgang, eds. Proceedings of the Mobile
Home Seminar . Urbana: Department of Architecture, University of
Illinois, 1976.
Parshall, Steven A., ed. Energy Consumption and Social Interaction in Mobile
Home Parks, Champaign County, Illinois . Urbana: Department of Architec-
ture, University of Illinois, 1974.
Sullivan, Harry Stack, M.D. The Psychiatric Interview . New York: W.W. Norton
and Co. , Inc. , 1970.
Summers, Gene, et al. Before Industrialization: A Rural Social System Base
Study . Bulletin 736, Agriculatural Experiment Station. Urbana: College
of Agriculture, University of Illinois, 1969.
Thayer, Ralph E. "Toward a Community Awareness of Growth and Development
Problems," Small Town .
Verona, John M. "Local Residents Plan the Process of Revitalization,"
Sma 1 1 Town .
Vidich, Arthur J. and Bensman, Joseph. Small Town in Mass Society: Class,
Power and Religion in a Rural Community . Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1968.
Schatzman, Leonard, and Strauss, Anselm. Field Research: Strageties for a
Natural Sociology . Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.
Warnick, James P. "Small Communities Have Their Share of Problems,"
Champaign-Urbana Courier , 4 Nov. 1976.
Winkelhake, Claude. "The Community Game," Objective , March 1976.
87
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA
711 40973C864 C003
THE CRESCENT CITY DISASTER URBANA, ILL
12 02531
